Any practical use for Universal Common Ancestor?

I've been looking for a practical use in applied science for the information that all life on earth evolved from a microbe that existed billions of years ago, but can't find any.

Have you really? Why?

One of the interesting things about knowledge, it doesn't disappear if you can't find a practical use for it.

Another interesting thing is, when humans study things they learn things that may be practical and things that may not be practical. I'm surprised you didn't realize that.

Scientists are by nature curious and the mysteries of how life works and how life originated are interesting subjects that scientists want to understand. Creationism and religion do not give any useful details, so we have to rely on scientific methods if we want to really understand anything.

If you don't want to know about these things it is pretty easy to ignore. If you want us to stop studying it, all I can say is, piss off.

Knowing that it pisses you off gives me a warm feeling inside.

Faith writes: Name one use. Knowledge.

This simple answer sums up the reason research in all aspects of evolutionary biology continues at an accelerating pace.

In entomology, the evolutionary history of species is under intense scrutiny now that rapid, cheap genetic sequencing is widely available. The knowledge gained from these studies have wide applications in agriculture, forestry, conservation and other human activities like global trade and the spread invasive species. Huge numbers of scientific papers are published dealing with these subjects and many more in entomological journals.

Knowledge of the adaptive and geographical spread of species in the past give us predictive power with regards to modern invasives. New genetic tools will allow us to manipulate the future evolution of many organisms for better or worse.

The effects of climate change on natural populations and our domesticated organisms can often be predicted using knowledge of their evolutionary history. Despite denials by some ignorant creationists, scientists around the world are using the science of evolutionary biology to understand how life on our planet is reacting to a changing climate.

Faith writes: I've shown that there is a natural limit to evolution in many threads already, showing that any line of variation will eventually run out of genetic variability as it were, ending in fixed loci for so many traits there is no further variation possible.

And yet we all remember that you have never shown anything of the kind. You made up a fantasy with no supporting evidence.

Your failure is absolute.

I know that the sky is blue, but I can't think of a practical use in applied science for that knowledge.

Do you know why it's blue? Understanding how light and elements in the atmosphere interact might have practical applications in spectrographic chemical analysis, but you are a purist and the sole arbiter of what is practical in applied science, or any science it seems.

I'm just thankful I don't have to bother trying to teach you anything, because you already know everything you want to.

He's a creationist. He doesn't have any good arguments, but he doesn't want to stop arguing.

And he's pissed that all those horrible atheists don't believe in his imaginary god.

You could well be the only person in the universe who doesn't consider applied biology to be part of "biology"! Try telling that to a biologist who makes his living from applied biology!

You know what? You are full of bullshit.

I made my living in biology and the first time I ever heard the term "applied biology" was from you right here.

I am an entomologist. We put a lot of effort into understanding how some groups of insects are related to each other. What I primarily worked with are wood boring insects. There are tens of thousands of species of just wood boring beetles and they are being spread around the globe by trade and ending up in new habitats with no one but us to figure out their life history and maybe how to keep them from destroying our forests and our orchards and our crops.

You may not like it and you may not believe it but we are working out the evolutionary history and relatedness of many groups of insects. We are figuring out recent common ancestors and working our way back. We talk about evolution continuously and it allows us to start making predictions about different possible management strategies. Knowing what evolutionary processes and mechanisms have been important in a species history gives us valuable clues to possible parisitoid controls we could employ.

As far as universal common ancestors go it's kind of an obvious conclusion from what we are seeing (to us). People talk about it over beers and at meetings and on field trips, but opinions seem to be spread out over several options. There could be one or a few common ancestors and some of them seem to have exchanged genes and organelles. Most biologists are working on more important problems but occasionally they run across evidence that gives us clues to understanding deeper ancestry. Tens of thousands of species are having their genomes sequenced and this is data on an unprecedented scale. Someone sees the value in what we are learning.

You seem to be giddy that we don't know everything there is to know about a universal common ancestor and that you can't find a practical use for any knowledge we may have learned. Oh gosh. We don't give a shit whether you benefit from it or not and we know a hundred ways to kill you with insects.

You have everything ass backwards. We are not applying evolution to what we are discovering, we are learning evolution from what we are discovering.

AZPaul3 writes: I'm not aware of any evolutionary theory that has provided a practical use in medicine or in any form of applied science. Well, you are a religionist and we already know your powers of critical thinking and logic can, shall we say, be difficult to accept so this opinion, like so many others by you and your most holy brethren holds no sway.

It is funny that he doesn't realize that his bullshit will never convince anyone working in any biological fields that they are doing it all wrong or that what they are learning has no value.

What a sad, empty life his rules would create.

Any practical use for a supernova or a black hole?

FTL?

This useful histoical information is confined to no higher than the level of genus - which means, as far as your work is concerned, the concept of UCA is as irrelevant and useless as a fairy tale.

I never said I used the concept of UCA in my work.

A YEC biologist could do the same work you do without being professionally comprised in any way. In fact, a biologist could believe life on earth is only 100 years old and still do the work you do.

Ok. You should get the word out. There is a distinct shortage of YEC biologists.

Yeah I know, that's because of the brainwashing and the conspiracy, but no one wants to work with idiots.

Whatever practical applications you have for "evolution" are simply practical applications of observable facts and principles of biology

The observable facts and principles of biology are the Theory of Evolution.

none of which depend on the concept/theory of UCA

I have never said anything depends on the concept/theory of UCA.

Since none of the observable facts and principles of biology depend in any way on the concept of UCA or evolutionary theory, the constant references to "evolution" by biologists may be redundant.

Well, I know you would like to control what biologists talk about, but you don't have that control.

You have been repeatedly told that the observable facts and principles of biology is the Theory of Evolution and none of it depends on UCA.

1. Of course you do - biologists are brainwashed to think in terms of the "unifying concept" of UCA, believing UCA is not only a fact, but is essetial scientific information.

Well, your brainwashing has failed on me. I have never thought UCA was a "unifying concept" or a fact or essential scientific information. You may believe that, but I do not.

humans had been exploiting the genetic variations in plants and animals and studying the respective common ancestries for thousands of years

Yeah right, along with imaginary entities and forces of nature. Real "applied science."

Dredge writes: People talk about it over beers and at meetings and on field trips, but opinions seem to be spread out over several options. No amount of rabbiting on about Darwinian folklore in bars and around campfires makes it true or practically useful.

You completely missed the point.

Dredge writes: There could be one or a few common ancestors and some of them seem to have exchanged genes and organelles. Most biologists are working on more important problems Hilarious. How do theoretical uncertainties relating to a concept that is totally irrelevant and useless in the real world amount to one of biology's "problems"?

And again, you missed the point.

Dredge writes: occasionally they run across evidence that gives us clues to understanding deeper ancestry. Tens of thousands of species are having their genomes sequenced and this is data on an unprecedented scale. Someone sees the value in what we are learning. The concept of UCA has no "value" at all in biology, as none of the observable facts and principles of biology depend on it in any way.

And I did not say anything about UCA or claim any value, and I certainly did not say any observable facts and principles of biology depend on it.

You are the one who thinks that, not me.

The bizarre fact is, most biologists are throughly brainwashed to accept the myth that the evolutionary interpretation of the history of life (ie, the concept of UCA) is essential to "understanding" biology.

You have a bizarre belief about most biologists.

Rare is the biologist who realizes that none of the observable facts and principles of biology depend on this Darwinian folklore.

Rare is the creationist who realizes that this is creationist bullshit, but that is the bizarre fact.

2. an unverifiable story about what might have happened billions of years ago hardly qualifies as "knowledge".

Yeah, that's what unverifiable means. I'm surprised you didn't know that.

You sure spend a lot of time whining about something you claim is unimportant. Why is that?

Edited by Tanypteryx, : added a word

Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes: We don't give a shit whether you benefit from it or not NO ONE benefits from the concept of UCA ... or any evolutionary theory, for that matter. Its only "benefit" is to make all those atheists out there feel more emotionally secure.

Well, one benefit is it sure makes you insecure.

Dredge writes: We are not applying evolution to what we are discovering, we are learning evolution from what we are discovering. Whatever useful applications of biology are discovered, you can be 100% certain none of them will depend on accepting UCA.

Wow, 100% certainty. Of course, since you are full of bullshit I probably won't take you word for anything.

You can't provide an example of a practical use for evolutionary theory. Thank you, that's all I need to know.

Like you said, knowing that is of no use to applied science.

And besides, you can't possibly know that because you couldn't have possibly done any useful research about a useless subject.

Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes: I never said I used the concept of UCA in my work. In that case, what was the point of you telling me this (from #131)?: "You may not like it and you may not believe it but we are working out the evolutionary history and relatedness of many groups of insects. We are figuring out recent common ancestors and working our way back. We talk about evolution continuously and it allows us to start making predictions about different possible management strategies. Knowing what evolutionary processes and mechanisms have been important in a species history gives us valuable clues to possible parisitoid controls we could employ."

Gosh, your reading comprehension needs a boost.

UCA is not the theory of evolution, no matter how many times you repeat your mistaken assertion that it is.

Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes: there is a distinct shortage of YEC biologists. Did you know that there exist professors of biology who are YECs? So much for the importance of evolutionary theory in biology!

Can you name any? And where do they teach?

Like I said, there are not many. I feel sorry for their students if they try to work in any biological fields. Like you, they will have real scientists doubting their competence their whole career.

Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes: The observable facts and principles of biology are the Theory of Evolution. W..Wh..What? You're a professional biologist and you think the theory of evolution is no more than a collection of observable facts and principles? Wow.

Wow indeed. I realize you didn't know this, but a scientific theory is based on the facts we know, not speculations, wishes, or beliefs.

Dredge writes: Look, this is how it works: Scientists took certain observable facts and principles of biology and formed the theory of evolution based on them. So obviously, ToE is more than just a collection of observable facts and principles.

Nope. This is incorrect. The Theory of Evolution includes all known facts and observations of biology. It is not obvious at all that it includes more. When new discoveries in biology are made, the theory is modified to include them. That's how science works. I am unsurprised you didn't know that.

Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes: You have been repeatedly told that the observable facts and principles of biology is the Theory of Evolution and none of it depends on UCA. 1. As explained above, the observable facts and principles of biology are not the theory of evolution, but only part of it.

Explained? You made some erroneous assertions. What do you think is the other part?

Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes: I have never thought UCA was a "unifying concept" or a fact or essential scientific information Really? Haven't you ever heard rhis: "Evolution is the unifying theory of biology"! Where have you been?

Really? You continue to mistakenly think UCA and the Theory of Evolution are the same thing. No matter how many time you try this you are wrong.

Dredge writes: So most biologist believe biology can do without the theory of evolution? Ya coulda fooled me! LIttle do they know that ToE is just a useless story and that biologists really can do without it.

You really are confused.

Dredge writes: Biologists haven't been brainwashed by ToE ... that's so funny!

We agree. I also think it's funny that biologists haven't been brainwashed by the ToE.

Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes: and I did not say anything about UCA or claim any value Okay, so when you said "Someone sees value in what we are learning", you were referring to discoveries in genetics? Golly gee, no kidding?

Yep.

Dredge writes: Tanypteryx writes: Rare is the creationist who realizes that this is creationist bullshit It is really? In that case, please explain which observable fact or principle of biology would not exist without the theory of evolution?

What? You are so confused.

Observable facts and principals of biology is what the Theory of Evolution is based on.